No more YOLOing (https://stacker.news/items/1430855/r/denlillaapan), just watch Jeopardy or The Price Is Right...

when it came to understanding why most individuals struggle to just match the market’s return, “Deal or No Deal” took the cake.

For the uninitiated, the U.S. version asked contestants to choose one of 26 unmarked briefcases containing between 1 cent and $1 million. That one got set aside unopened and then six more briefcases were chosen and opened. If not many high-value briefcases were revealed then that was good for the player.
The bit of the show that kept people glued to their screens was that the contestant then got an offer from a hidden “banker” for the first, unopened briefcase. Did they go for the bird in the hand or two in the bush?

We used to play/reason through these sorts of games in behavioral econ class back in the day. WAS FANTASTICALLY FUN

Like investors, players often took the money. The work of Daniel Kahneman, the psychologist who won a Nobel Prize in economics, explains why players wound up, on average, with about a fifth less than the optimal amount: Losing that guaranteed sum hurt more than giving up potential gains.

Even in a game in which you can’t know more than anyone else, being able to separate emotions from money would earn players more money. Warren Buffett might have done great on “Deal or No Deal.” He also would have been the most boring contestant ever.

archive: https://archive.md/KKkiN